« Will They Submit to Ticketmaster? | Main | The Costanza Defense Revisited »

July 13, 2007

At least for Bishop Brandolini of the Italian Episcopal Conference, who still proudly wears Archbishop Bugnini's episcopal ring. On July 7th Pope Benedict issued his much-anticipated apostolic letter, Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal). Since at least October 2006 interested parties worldwide have speculated when the motu proprio might be promulgated and what exactly the Pontiff would decree. Well into the season of Pentecost, its recent advent has sparked considerable commentary. Mr. Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, as an apparently nascent Catholic theologian, has stated that the use of the 1962 Missal signals a "theological setback in the lives of Catholics." Richard John Neuhaus has suggested that Benedict was quite clever to attach the dark and dirty smells and bells of the old Latin Mass to Pope John XXIII, whom liturgical progressives have lauded since a conga drum first arrived in a sanctuary.

As I suggested back in October, I do not believe the motu will act as the ultimate gesture to bring the schismatic Society of St. Pius X back into full communion, but it may well be a penultimate signal to the group that the Vatican takes seriously the "dignity and harmony" (St. Pius X's Abhinc Duos Annos) of the Tridentine Rite. Again, the liturgical issue is but one of many considerations that keep Lefebvre's followers outside St. Peter's piazza, but as the Society's Superior General, Bishop Fellay, has stated, the motu is a "very significant historical event."

Nevertheless, the motu is momentous, so to speak, for a number of reasons:

• This is the first time in 19 years a Pontiff has addressed the use of the 1962 Missal, and is the first time since the conclusion of Vatican II that a Pontiff has given explicit, plenary permission to celebrate the Mass according to the Rite promulgated by John XXIII. Unlike John Paul's Ecclesia Dei, promulgated in 1988, Summorum Pontificum is clear that no permission is required from the local Ordinary for a priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. In addition, celebration of the older Rite may take place at any dioscean church.
• The motu is clear in confronting the common misconception that the Tridentine Mass was somehow abrograted by the Novus Ordo of Paul VI. Benedict sets down the first Article of the motu with this in mind: "The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless [emphasis added] the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same [emphasis added] 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage." Further, in his letter to bishops worldwide, Benedict plainly states that the Tridentine Mass "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." This is not to say that the Tridentine Mass was actively suppressed, however.
• Although some have suggested, including British Bishop Kieran Conry, that the motu will lead to something of a bifurcated litrugy and ecclesial identity, I am hesitant to agree. From personal experience at parishes in New Haven, Connecticut, and Indianapolis, I have found the opposite to be the case. Serving as a lector for the Novus Ordo Mass and a regular communicant at the Tridentine Mass, I routinely have witnessed churches socialize and worship as one ecclesial body - all the while celebrating both the (now) ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Consider Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis. In a ten-year period since the introduction of the Tridentine Mass, the church has grown by 35% - in both Novus Ordo attendance as well as Tridentine. At the church's recent Italian Street Festival, parishioners worked together without regard to who was standing or kneeling to receive the Host. Whatever else parishioners may be thinking while sitting in the pews, it certainly is not the "otherness" of worshipers of a different tongue. Notwithstanding the sincerity of pastoral concerns that certain prelates express, they appear detached from reality.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at July 13, 2007 06:05 PM

Comments

Post a comment